For one moth I created one animation a day, exploring the symbolism and culture.Text that accompanied the images
They dance to forget the self, it being on hard-core as an inducing ritual, forgetting.As they go into their realm, the space they belong on the dance floor. Because it's there that they belong. This is my place and I'll be here forever. I marked myself with my own symbols representing a selected reality. As the wheel keep on turning. Concentrating under the lip, it's the way I kiss myself while I'm in ecstasy. My eyes look like the moon because within this moment I become the mother, empty myself of all my fixation. Therefor I return to this place every week-end to form my ritualized space with my ceremonial dance, in which I become eternity. Cleansing my vision of fabricated visions. To only return to the father and get reduced to an object once again, a product of the institution. I need to come back and rebel until my death, free myself of the weight with the tools I was formed in. As low as I seem, I'm as spiritual as the monk in his sanctuary. High and low, the social definition, but both deal with problems of the fixated mind.
Coca cola as a spiritual medium. Coca cola equally is a spiritual relic which contributes to the reality we live in. Sub-consciously it affects us, since it's channeled throughout the whole world. I'm not here to argue the quality it's channeling but the status it reached through conscious support. There is in no way any power within it's symbolism without a conscious viewer. What this viewer generates towards the sight of this symbol is up to the constructed mind it embodies.
As in Asia many people offer coca-cola to the gods, where in other places it gets deemed to be as bad as the devil. Whatever it's content may be, it being destructive for the body or not is not of my concern here. My concern lays in the reaction one has by the sight of coca cola, or any other symbol. The symbol in itself has no content, it's the content that's generated toward it which matters. For symbols shift on a daily basis. It is likely that one can see coca cola as an offering of the highest level without ever having consumed a drop of it's content. There's no condemning this person, he choses to elevate this relic to it's high position by worship. If one tells him the actual content of the product or the position of the company he may change his mind. However he still has many options to shift his point of view. He could condemn it as a destructor, he could marginalize it because it's importance seemed of a lessor quality, he could continue his practice and see it not from it's content but as a symbolic relationship he started… There are many option but there are certain options which are of a more subtle nature. The worship of a symbol out of ignorance my lead to regret when its content get's know, because the relationship was not personal, nor understood. The person could use it's overall presence consciously and shift it's position to a reminder of change, thus the symbol having no power, only the power of it's personal relationship. The worst position would be either to enter into radicalization, in which the symbol reaches a godlike proportion. Here we could argue that coca cola is the one and only best product. In which case the symbol and it's content are strongly connected and this solidifies it's symbolic power. Or we can go to the opposite and say that it's the worst thing on the planet, in which equally the connected symbol and its content gets solidified. The importance of this ritualization of the symbol is that we subconsciously react toward it, as in the state we solidified the symbols and it's content. If negative we generate a negative impulse. If positive we generate a positive impulse, which may seems as an indication of positivity but has the tendency to turn towards addiction, if symbol and content are connected.
The best option is that we learn to distinguish the content and it's symbol, and learn to react neutral based on experience. To not react strong towards any symbol but simply see it as it's representation and not the actual object.
So as a relic in itself should have no meaning which originates from ignorance but rather be a personal relationship in which one chooses the consciously split symbol from content. As I grow this principle becomes more and more part of my being. If we expand we learn to not react towards anger/pain/frustration/symbolism of other but to judge by it's content and not it's radicalized symbolism.
The masculine and it's manifestation
The feminine and it's endlessness
The more I tended to fade the tone of my essence, the more I tend to get confronted with the questions. I always felt my reasoning was far different from what most people expect what reasoning is, it's always been a kind of anti-reason, for life was always at the highest level of instability for me. It seems so lucid that the sense of it is merely an temporary illusion, and it is.
To come to the nature of this all, what is matter and eventually what is life? As we conceptualize we become and it becomes. How can we take solidity serious as it is an reduction of the "reality". A reality which is equally a reductionist concept. What we measure is bound to instrumentalism, we expect result based on our previous information. As we build instruments to measure something specific which gives an outcome of A or B or ABC or ABCDE…. But those are equally merely definitions of a what? An ending universe? A definable universe. And here I start to sense a cosmic joke. As we think to be actually measuring something significant it always seems less significant by time. How far can we stretch the measurements in the future and on which level will these measurements still be even close to accurate? At first we defined a particle but by now we know there's no such thing as a particle. We could define it as merely vibration but there's equally no such thing as vibration. We can endlessly define but I'm sure the defining will never stop, for it cannot stop. Where lay's an end? Linguistics, symbolism are our tools of measurement but I would argue they are our tools of manifestation. What we measure outside is only what we perceive inside and inside lays a limited medium. The borders of that limited medium are edge of it's beliefs, ego.
As it comes to the ridicule statement "why don't you fly of then" if all is merely an illusion? It's not to take these statement lightly as the consciousness has believe, it believes it's a body, it believes it's alive and it believes it's solid. It will not be transcended by the click of my fingers. However, it is possible to fly, since I believe in all possibility, but the probability being very low. But then again if we look in the future and look at the development of technology. What if we alter matter? What if all these possibilities become a possibility? At that given moment the solidified reality becomes merely a creative field of consciousness. And all this rigidness becomes liquid as it ultimately is beyond definition.
The moon is the mother, it's empty and has no force, it's the simplest way of being and eventually the nothingness or everythingness. Yin energy or white energy, white being the blank space and black being the full space. However wholesome black is equally nothingness and a paper being fully black with a white line creates the opposite effect. She's the mother, because the mother is care and loving. She doesn't implement force. The female mother is however only the archetypical representation of the feminine. Femininity has nothing to do with being either female or male, it has become a psychological property. I say "has" because in the past this was an archetypical constraint by which a being was instinctually guided making it impossible to escape this role. This because of a lack of creativity/possibility. As things evolve male or female can be the embodiment of femininity and even within primitive times there always was a trace of both sides within each other.
As we trace history back into simplicity, the state before manifestation could be considered feminine and the act of manifestation could be considered masculine. At which time the two main principles came into existence. Being or not being / male or female / emptiness or somethingness… From these two properties all other of creation based their expression and can be seen in all the dual aspects of life. Thus as life evolved there was male and female which embodied the archetype of the first creation.
Creation of the Great work by indoctrination of symbolic context.
The symbol (G) is a Masonic symbol, the actual meaning of the symbol is surrounded by secrecy, it being a secret society. Some say the the G stands for God or The great work. As for me the exact meaning will never be found, nor will the authority over any symbol be stabilized by any specific meaning. It is the observer who gives meaning to the symbol and not the establishment behind it. The biggest conspiracy therefor lays within the self, by which one losses it's possession over it's symbols and gives their power to a "greater" authority.
The one who react strongly (fixated) towards a symbol is consumed by the intend of the constructor and not by the creativity of ones own will.
The child always carries the load which narrows it's way down all the way from the top of the constitutional structure. Throughout the social structure and eventually the family, parents, child. It's the child that's been hurt who flows into all of these stages. Becoming the parent, becoming the social structure and eventually becoming the institution.
Strong convictions which have been branded into the child are the issue. The form of it's creativity is liquid and does not imply by any means the usage of excesive force. Creativity, opinion, different views are to be embraced for it are these that make life interesting. But the force which get implemented with these forms of creativity are scars passed onto the child. As it's been fed with insecurity and taught to leave it's liquid nature behind. A child is not born radical or with a solidified personality. It's the responsibility of the parents/teachers to sustain it's openness and creativity. But in most cases the opposite happens.
Between this shifting where the child is no longer a child but becomes an individual lays confusion. Where it first was nurtured and thought into a system it's now on her or his own. You cannot blame a child by any means for it's behavior because it's behavior is a reflection of you, the teacher. However between the shift to "adulthood" your marks have been placed upon you and you act regarding those marks. Which are by no means your own intentions.
Thus the cycle is born, the hurt child becomes a parent, becomes the social structure and eventually becomes the institution.
To heal is to become the child ones and again, liquid in it's form. It's seems more needed then ever and funny enough we live in the age of aquarius.